Social Media Ban and Referendum: Gabriel Attal's Constitutional Gamble

The short version

Gabriel Attal, a presidential candidate for the Renaissance party, has proposed submitting a ban on social media for children under 15 to a national referendum. This move follows the Constitutional Council's decision to strike down the law originally adopted by Parliament. The proposal is not merely a political stance on screen time; it is a specific test of constitutional mechanics. Attal argues that child protection falls under the nation's "social policy," a category that, under Article 11 of the Constitution, allows for direct popular vote. This piece explains that mechanism and the legal tightrope it implies.

The proposal and the constitutional hook

According to reports from Le HuffPost and La Tribune, Attal called on President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, August 15, to bypass the legislative deadlock. The core of his argument rests on a specific legal classification: a law containing a ban on social media for under-15s is a "child protection" measure. Attal contends this places it within the realm of the nation's "social policy".

Under Article 11 of the French Constitution, the President can submit laws related to social policy directly to the people. Attal's logic, as reported by Le Figaro and La Tribune, is that if the ban is framed as social protection, it becomes eligible for a referendum. This would allow the measure to be validated directly by voters, theoretically circumventing the specific legal hurdles that led to the initial law's censorship. As noted in an opinion piece published by La Tribune, Attal explicitly states that this path is constitutionally possible.

The legal tightrope: European law vs. national verdict

The situation presents a complex challenge for any future government. The initial law was blocked because it failed to meet legal standards set by the Constitutional Council. Now, the path forward requires navigating a narrow margin between two powerful constraints.

As highlighted by Orange Actualités, the file is difficult to finalize because it forces a "tightrope walk" between European law and the Constitutional Council's decision. The Council's earlier ruling identified gaps in legal safeguards, particularly regarding privacy and age verification. Any new text, whether passed by Parliament or via referendum, must address these observations. Attal's proposal suggests a new device that accounts for the Council's notes but seeks its legitimacy from the electorate rather than the judges. This creates a tension: can a popular vote override a constitutional court's finding on legal safeguards? The proposal aims to test this very question.

Conclusion: Legitimacy versus legal constraints

Attal's call for a referendum shifts the debate from the technicalities of age verification to the source of political legitimacy. By framing the ban as a "social policy" issue, the proposal seeks to empower the "French people" directly. However, this approach remains a hypothesis until tested against the full weight of constitutional interpretation. The core tension remains: balancing the desire for popular expression with the strict legal constraints imposed by the Constitutional Council and European regulations. The mechanism is clear, but its success depends on whether the legal system accepts a referendum as a valid solution to a constitutional defect.

Going further

• Le HuffPost: Attal's call to Macron for a referendum — The initial report detailing the candidate's request and the context of the law's censorship.
• La Tribune: Attal's full opinion piece — The complete text where Attal explains the Article 11 argument and the "social policy" classification.
• Orange Actualités: The debate on the referendum — Analysis of the complexity involving European law and the Constitutional Council's constraints.